Charge Negotiation

Charge Negotiation

Charge negotiations during a criminal trial are between the accused person and prosecutor. It is when the accused agrees to admit to a crime (sometimes a lesser crime that the one set out in the original charge eg. Admitting to manslaughter rather than murder). A plea of guilty will generally attract a discounted sentence and avoids spending taxpayer’s money. Negotiations are conducted in accordance with the Prosecution Guidelines of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The goal of the negotiation is to secure a guilty plea, meaning a quick resolution avoiding lengthy and costly trials. It is also there to ensure that someone guilty of a serious crime DOES go to prison and is not let off because of a weaker defense or prosecution case.

Prosecution offers a charge negotiation, where a person charged with a criminal offence please guilty to a lesser charge.

A plea bargain falls under the discretionary powers of the prosecution, meaning the public is able to trust that the parties involved in the process have upheld the same judicial principles that would apply to a conviction reached after trial.

Significance of the Edward Lee Case
The case of Edward Lee is significant because it shows that the process of Charge Negotiation can be abused to punish someone for a crime, even if they had not committed it. It was the 2nd time in NSW where a judge has refused to accept a manslaughter plea. Justice Hulme’s decision was applauded and attorney-general Chris Hartcher said it was “wonderful to see the court taking a firm stand”.

Significance of the Nannette May Case
A solicitor has argued that there is “widespread abuse of the plea bargaining system”, cautioning that defendants arguing serious crimes are negotiating their way to lesser charges. In the case of Nannette May, her attack may receive as little as 7 years in jail because of a plea bargain, without the appropriate consultation with victims. This case is significant because it shows the how little the guidelines are being followed in the criminal trial process. By not following the guidelines, offenders are getting lesser sentences, “without any legitimate public purpose” said Mr. Hatzistergos

The Charter of Victim’s rights was meant to help protect the rights of victims. Under the DPP’s guidelines, it is required to ensure adequate consultation with victims and that the charges and agreed facts reflect the seriousness of the offences

Justice Samuels “we’ve got to stop selling victims out. Prosecutions almost need to get the permission of victims to enter into charge negotiations.”

Justice Hulme: He wants there to be a greater alignment of the crime presented to the jury.

Police Association: loves it, supportive of people being convicted.

Nicholas Cowdery: loves it, punishing people who do the wrong thing. “Not driven by trend or money, but on the merits of the case”.

Pros and Cons of Charge Negotiation

Pros
Cons
Secures a conviction – important when police do not have sufficient evidence
Considered to be offender friendly rather than victim friendly
Witnesses do not have to re-live trauma
What accused actually pleads guilty often does not reflect the seriousness of the crime
Saves time and expenses (promotes resource efficiency)
“Diluting the severity of the case”

On one hand, charge negotiation is efficient and saves money, not wasting limited resources. On the other hand, it is not as effective and allows offenders to be charged with a lesser crime, which doesn’t necessarily achieve justice.

We want our system to be both effective and efficient, but our current methods and tendancies to plea bargain mean our system is about efficiency over effectiveness.

Double Benefit to offenders:
1. Guilty to a lesser charge = a lesser possible sentence.
2. Early guilty plea = 25% discount to the sentence